Hollow Rules

A while back, George W. Bush was quoted as having said that the
Constitution is only a "goddamn piece of paper." In a way, he was
right. Though the Constitution talks about what the federal
government is supposed to do, and what it's NOT supposed to do, the
document is not self-enforcing. The Constitution itself is not
going to come to life, jump up, and clobber a President or a
Congress that do things they shouldn't. The document will just
quietly sit there, as the ideas expressed in it are ignored or
violated.

My own adventures with the IRS and the federal court system--as
described in detail in my new book, "Kicking the Dragon
(Confessions of a Tax Heretic)"--give a fine illustration of the
problem with expecting a supposed "authority" to play by any set of
rules, including its own. What will happen to someone in
"government" who misuses his power or oversteps his bounds? Almost
everyone assumes that such things should and must be dealt with via
the system itself. In other words, rather than the people having a
revolution, or some other type of unpleasant clash with those
claiming to be "authority," most people hope that someone INSIDE
the system will enforce justice.

Why people would expect that, I'm not sure. After all, everyone
inside the system receives some measure of money and/or power from
the game, and the bigger and more powerful "government" becomes,
the more wealth and power each person in it has the potential of
obtaining. So why would anyone inside the system ever want a
"limited government," and why would they lift a finger to enforce
any such limits?

(I should note, however, that it was a pretty clever trick for the
Founders to intentionally pit one power against another, both in
the three separate branches of the federal government, and in the
state governments versus the federal. For example, while state
politicians may not actually care about individual liberty or any
other principles, they will naturally want there to be limits on
the federal power, because that leaves more power for themselves.
In other words, their own megalomaniacal tendencies make them want
to limit someone else's attempts at becoming an all-powerful
tyrant. But even this trick fails, once the tyrants figure out how
to cooperate to achieve power, instead of fighting each other.)

Years back, I created a video and a written report, among other
things, alleging that some inside the United States government, by
way of the misrepresentation and misapplication of the federal
"income tax," had committed the largest financial fraud in history.
Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, there's no denying
that such an accusation, if heard and believed by lots of people,
would endanger the power of many inside the system. And so they set
out to shut me up.

As it happens, the First Amendment says that I have a right to
"freedom of speech," and that the government has no right to stop
me from speaking my mind. But in May of 2003, while IRS goons were
raiding my home, stealing every copy they could find of my
perfectly legal video and my perfectly legal report--neither of
which has ever been the subject of any injunction or other legal
action, and neither of which has even been ALLEGED to be illegal--
the First Amendment didn't do a darn thing about it. When I
afterwards pointed out that the Constitution, federal statutory
law, and "case law" (rulings of the courts) all specifically
condemn and forbid what the IRS did, everyone inside the system
either looked the other way, or gave their blessing to the IRS'
illegal and unconstitutional censorship campaign. (To add insult to
injury, a ruling by Judge Michael Baylson said that it was
"frivolous" for me to suggest that the IRS' actions were motivated
by a desire to silence me, even though anyone with half a brain
cell could see that that was the case.)

My case alone plainly shows those in power intentionally and
continually violating the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth,
the Sixth, and the Ninth and Tenth, not to mention every basic
principle of justice (not lying under oath, not suppressing
exculpatory evidence, and so on). And what did "the rules" do to
prevent that? Not a thing. What does the Constitution do to protect
our "unalienable rights"? Not a thing. And what happens to those in
"government" who intentionally and repeatedly violate those rights?
Not a thing. (Actually, they are usually rewarded and promoted for
it.)

If there's one thing I hope my new book accomplishes, it's to open
a few eyes to what a joke the myth of the "rule of law" and "due
process" have become in this country. Whether those reading the
book agree with, or even fully understand, my legal conclusions
about the proper application of the federal income tax laws (i.e.,
the 861 evidence) is secondary. I didn't write the book in order to
prove my positions on the tax laws to be valid (though I believe it
does that as well), but to expose the true nature of those
pretending to be "public servants," and those who pretend to be the
agents of the law, the Constitution, and a system of "justice."

If someone can read my book and still think that I'm some crackpot
"tax protestor," so be it. What they WON'T be able to do, whatever
they think of me, is to continue to believe that we live in "the
land of the free," or that those who hold power today give a damn
about what is true, what is legal, what is right, or what is just.
As I've always said, no matter what else happens, my agenda is to
do the right thing and to PUBLICIZE it when those in "government"
do the wrong thing. And that is just what "Kicking the Dragon"
does, to an extent which should and will infuriate anyone with a
conscience.

(To pre-order your own copy of the book--orders will start to be
filled in the next couple of weeks--visit the
http://www.kickingthedragon.com web site, or send $22 to the
address shown below.)

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA  19006

Copyright Issues?